POV, Malthus and Photography

October 29, 2009 by pmelcher.

It is not what you photograph that matters anymore, it is how you photograph it. It used to be that cameras, processing,  access and mostly distribution was the privilege of a few, all nicely rewarded by a comfortable income. This closed “Boy’s Club” had many high level entry barriers . Not so much. Cameras have remain expensive tools, although currently starting to follow Moore’s law. But processing, access and mostly distribution have become so dirt cheap and easy that anyone can join. And because the pie seems to be limited, the photo industry is experiencing a Malthusian moment.

It is not clear yet if the photo licensing business has limit. Like the Universe, it could be expending and we might not be aware of it. yet. We know for a fact that microstock pricing and content, has either brought in or converted thousands upon thousands of new licensing customers. We also know that they are billions upon billions of images on the internet, mostly unlicensed, either by will of their creators or just plainly stolen. And as millions of new web pages are created every day worldwide certainly all containing at least one photograph, we can safely assume that the photo market is expanding.

We just have not, like scientists in space, found our dark matter, or it’s equivalent . How to reach and turn all these usages in paying customers. Sure, we battle  the constant threat of the evil empire take-over, also sometimes called Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier or even Google, as they try to manipulate the rules of the universe by making all these images free.

But that is not what this post is about. This is about how photography, that used to mostly about what you shot is becoming more about how you shoot it. It used to be that a news photographer only needed to take pictures of an event to see it published. Since they were practically alone, or were the only ones with a distribution channel, the images were almost guaranteed to be published. Not so much anymore as photography, like our planet, has experience an uncontrollable population growth. There are photographers everywhere, shooting everything, either with cellphones or high end Leica M9’s (who pricing, BTW, is more adequate for a lawyer or Wall Street Ceo than a pro photographer). And, in consequence, there is photogrpahy everywhere too. From Photobucket, to Flickr, via Alamy, Istockphoto, Shutterstock and many many others, the total offering of images must be in the billions. Of everything and nothing. Creating a pool of images probably ten times bigger, and expanding ten times faster, than the user pool.

So, some curiously unamusing professionals have taken to their soap boxes and have either called for rallying behind HD video, Twitter, Facebook, time lapse, HDR in a desperate and futile effort to try and recreate, or protect, what is left of that “Boy’s Club”. They have failed to understand that what is available to a pro is also available to any amateur. There is no salvation in equipment nor in fads. Unless if you sell them.

Even less amusing is how the official photography press continues to embellish this myth with a monthly passion.

So what is the solution ? POV. What was always the tool of any brilliant photographer. Point of View. That is always what any photo editor worldwide is going to look for. Not what camera, lens, or technique is being used but the Point of View of the photographer. It  is not so much the access either, as even with exceptional access, one can still make bad images. If you want to license images and make money, then shoot everything with a POV.

It is not Peter Souza’s access, White House staff photographer, that make his images brilliant. It is how he uses it. It is not Annie Liebovitz privileged access to celebrities that makes her images incredible, it’s her point of vue. We could go on and on with examples ( Think Steve McCurry, for example, or HCB, Doisneau, Ernst Haas, Willy Ronis, and so on) of photogrpahers with no privilege acces to our world who have done wonders. Without fancy cameras either, or zoom lenses with built in GPS’s.

So next time you stand in line to listen to some succesful photographers telling you that whatever he is holding in his hand is the key to that elusive “boy’s club” you all so want to be a member off, you turn around and go outside to take some picture. That, and only that will give you access to the most exclusive club on the world where no one can you chase you away from, your own POV club.

Posted in license, focus, lens, commercial stock, multimedia, google, editorial, photojournalism, flickr, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

Dying in Africa

September 24, 2009 by pmelcher.

I do not want to see another photo essay, multimedia or any visual on dying Africans. Never, ever again.  Enough. I understand that it makes for compelling images, that it seems that the photographers cares, but it present such a distorted vision of this beautiful continent. Not every country is at war, not every African is an orphan dying of aids or malnutrition. Not everyone lives in a broken down shaft wearing nothing more than rip jeans.

But from here, from the United States of America, a country which is still very much struggling with its very, very  racist past, it is just not sending the right message. It is actually saying “look, Africa is this continent full of malnourished savages with hatchets dying of aids because they are uneducated”. It is the biggest, longest, most powerful brainwashing operation that photojournalists have gladly contributed to with open arms.

This ongoing belief, supported by photo festivals like Visa and others, that photojournalism is all and only about blood, decay, despair and endless wars has found in Africa an endless feeding ground.

Although most of these images do not lie, it is not the Truth. This is not Africa. It would be like putting a loupe on a beautiful dress and  only continuously showing its one flaw.

The reason is clear. It is mainly because of NGO photojournalism. Rich people give money to NGO’s who then hire photographers to document their work. And since they operate in poor, war and disease stricken area of Africa, that is all we get to see these days. And because of the continued lack of funding of the editorial press, we will probably see even more, not less.

Just imagine your perception of America if all you would see were images of  9/11, Katrina, Detroit, urban ghettos and nothing else. Don’t laugh Europe, we could do the same with you. Would you ever consider going there on vacation ?

Africa, or at least it’s despair, has become the playing ground of the new photojournalists. Like a badge of honor, you’re not a real photojournalist if you have not covered at least one desolate part of the continent. The results is thousand upon thousand of reportages , essays, multimedias, especially online, repeating the same stories to a saturation point. No wonder magazines will not publish them even if some are extremely brilliant. They are, as the readers, fed up.

In  a way, photojournalism is killing itself by over repetition. Ironically, it is also deforming our view of the world by being so stubbornly surgical and mono sighted. It is replacing reality with cliches, destroying what it tries to explain.

So please no more images of half naked dying soldiers full of flies under an imponderable sun, no more death looking eyes on top of an extremely malnourished 3 year old, no more images of Kalashnikov-wearing tweens walking barefoot on dirt pathways amid the empty Savannah. It will end up making everyone look the other way, if it hasn’t already. Make us hope, make us want to get involved. Don’t disgust. You are not better, or more useful, because you took pictures of it and we didn’t. If you keep this up, it’s not Africa that will disappear first, but those who try, so poorly, to make us aware of its plights.

Posted in multimedia, magazine, focus, lens, newspaper, TIME, editorial, slideshow, photojournalism, news | Print | 6 Comments »

it’s not brain surgery

September 17, 2009 by pmelcher.

It is amusing to see that the photography world, especially those who persist in shooting for commercial stock, have yet to use the tools around them.

Up the now, the only intelligence gathering tool that has been used ad-nauseum, has been the mighty Excel sheet with pages of past sales. Does a past criminal has more change of killing again than someone who has never committed a crime ? If you answered yes, your the excel type, if you said no, read on.

Science, as we all know, has progressed by leaps and bounds. We all learned how we see light and color, something that has taken our scientists a very, very long time to understand. But then, we drop science, pick up our cameras, and rely on our spreadsheets to predict what will sell.

Why not continue to piggy back science ? How do we understand information, what are the colors that make us react, the shapes. Sure, it takes a lot of reading of different aspects of scientific discovery, but aren’t photographers humanist at heart? Well, at least those  with a heart instead of a wallet. Sociology, psychology, brain theory, history, anthropology, all those are fields which should be under heavy surveillance by all  photographers, and photo agencies agency.

For example, recent study in brain theory ( you known, the reason why our brains does what it does) suggest that our brain is entirely geared in trying to predict what will happen next. It uses our senses, plus our memory, obviously, to make an assessment of our current situation and quickly predict what to expect next. In another way, our brain dislikes surprises..

How does that affect photography? Well, here are some suggestions. If the brain constantly tries to predict, than it will quickly pass over banality ( what it considers will not change) and focuses on the unknown and /or the potentially versatile. Thus unpredictability will catch our attention much more than the obvious. Mostly because our brain functions will try to analyze and process the situation in order to figure out what will/could happen next.

Photography  should then be the art of catching the unpredictable (or suggesting it) . Not forcibly in the actual frame that is seen, but sometimes in the next one that is hinted. Thus, putting the viewers brain in a state of forced analysis of the situation it is seeing and provoking a thought. Or many. This will force the viewer to use past experiences, knowledge, memories, emotions to attempt to reconcile the photograph with a possible outcome. It can also be an emotional outcome.

Think about it. Look at the images that have striked you the most and that you like the best, and based on what you have just read above, see if it applies. Are those photographs your favorite because they provoked a sense of unpredictability that you were forced to reconcile with your knowledge of the world at that time ?

This is just an example of how current scientific advances are of tremendous help to our trade. There are many, many others. Those who are interested in perfecting their art should drop the business manuals, their keywording manuals and the SEO handbooks and should rather pick up any books related to human science.

Posted in focus, technology, commercial stock, keyword, photojournalism, finance, filter, editorial | Print | No Comments »

Full Frontal disclosure

August 14, 2009 by pmelcher.

The future of photography is exclusive content. Not exclusive as in no one else wants to shoot this, otherwise called “niche” photography. No, no. Niche photography is just exactly that : a specialized market. And with specialized comes limited.

When photography was still film, print and slide, no one could really copy as they could not see what you had shot. As digital distribution came to become a standard, other photographers saw what was being offered, and said :”hey, I can shoot that”. They invented Royalty Free. As broadband became more and more available, individuals saw royalty free and rights managed and said ” hey, I can shoot that”. And microstock was invented.

The pricing of images became inversely proportional to the volume created. The more created, the least costly.

Sure, some did  some variation on images. But they only tapped on the variation of the market. Which is never much. Others came out with some new ideas, quickly replicated by the thousands by diverse photographers worldwide.

Others decided that the only way to keep some value was to get content hard for others to copy.  Like exploding volcanoes, or deep underwater photography. Or rain forest insects. and get really specialized at that. Problem is, that is also not a big market.

So what is the solution? Do video? doubtful. we will see the same trend quickly in video. actually microstock have already invaded video before it got mainstream and beat the traditional RM and RF companies to it. Forget it.

First, stop shooting stock. The market is not there anymore. well, not for pros. Shoot commission work only and put that in stock. That is how the whole market started anyway and how it will survive. why? because commission will give you access to places, or people that are not available to the common mortal. It will also create images that are specific to a need that no one else has thought about. why ? well, because if they had, they would have used stock instead of hiring you.

Once you have that content, sell it well and hard. Do not drop it in the dollar bin. Those images will be your calling cards, both for stock and for more assignments. Yes, you are expensive, but your are also very good.

Second, do not copy. If you have an idea, look to see if it has been done. If it has, drop it. Move on. be creative.

Third, stop looking at your sales report. They tell you what sold, not what will sell. and while you are at it, stop reading  those creative intelligence papers. If you read it, thousands of other photographers have too. What is the point ?

Go to workshops to learn how and what NOT to shoot. Same as above. Learn to be a loner.

Dis-learn: Forget all the rules, regulations, obligations, conditions, and other “…ions” that are stuffed in your head. Each one is another rope to your creativity.

Dis connect: Your computer screen is more a distraction than anything else. If you don’t have one, get a smart phone for those important emails and use that. On top of being a distraction, it can lead very quickly to a “groupthink” mentality . Its not a good crowd to hang out with.

Do not offend. If your images are offensive in any way, they will never be used for commercial purpose, and less and less for editorial. If you want to shock people, do it with beauty, talent and art. Beautiful sells, sometimes much better than sex.

Be emotional : too many photographers, in an attempt to be as generic as possible in order to be attractive to the biggest market, create blend, lifeless images. Be as emotional as humanly possible. The more your images generates emotions in its viewers, the better. But do not shock, or repulse. Reach for the happy, good emotions.

Hide your best work.  Only your clients should see it. no one else.

Do not share or post your techniques. You will only be popular with the ones that have no imaginations. Like leeches, they feed on others knowledge.

Never, ever ask for the opinion of another photographer. If its good, they will copy you, if it’s bad, they won’t tell you.

Do not think volume. One image will not compensate for the other. The more scarce your work, the more valuable. You are not a factory, after all.

Do not beleive there is a “secret”. There is none. That’s the secret.

Work on the process, not the result. If the process is perfect, the result will be.

Do not equip yourself too much. Talent is not measure by the numbers of lenses or gizmos you carry. Actually, the less you carry, the more you can concentrate on your images.

In other words, be exclusive. Make your content unique and keep it so.

Disclaimer : The Bohemian is not a photographer. He never was and never will be. Although he did sell one of his companies to one of the Big Twos, he doesn’t pretend to carry all knowledge. The information above is to be taken “as is”. If it doesn’t work, no one is legally, or otherwise, liable. Should you want real counsel, please go buy one of those very expensive books, DVD’s, or boxes that promises miracles. That should work. Since you have not paid anything to view this blog, you will not be reimbursed. Satisfied or not.Ever.

Posted in focus, technology, lens, commercial stock, license, prosumer, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 5 Comments »

Your business as a multi-layered cake

April 22, 2009 by pmelcher.

“In five years? Maybe the only stock businesses are companies that add value by scouring the web for the best work within a genre….sort of back to photo research services.“

When the great Ellen Boughn speaks, the world of photography listens : read the whole interview here :

http://learnaniche.com/blog/2009/04/22/ellen-boughn-and-the-future-of-stock-photography/

Posted in focus, commercial stock, Midstock, prosumer, transaction, PACA, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

Please, save photography

March 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

A bunch of photography associations recently banded together and issued a joint statement.  Called “Save photography !”, it is looking to garner enough signatures from photo professionals to make an impact. The country is France and the associations are Freelens (a photojournalist association), the UPC ( Union des Photographes Createurs) and the Saif ( An association for creators of visuals).

In a nutshell, the statement says that photography is under the multiple attacks of “royalty Free”, microstock pricing and images credited under the all encompassing “DR” , which stands for Droits Reserves, meaning Rights Reserved, which is a corny way to say “we do not who owns this image but it is certainly not yours and we will not pay anyone”.  Falling prices, the “commoditisation” of photography and the legal definition of an original are also issues being raised. Mass-owned affordable technology also contributes. You can read the full statement here ( in French).

There is a certain legitimacy to their complains, albeit it seems what they want to save is the business side of photography, not really photography itself. As all things French, the petition doesn’t offer any other solution than asking the government to do something about it.

What I suggest they do, is ask Getty Images to stop giving  $20,000 grants to TV photographer Alex Majoli.To see what I mean, please see his latest production on Magnum in Motion:

Maybe he needs the money to purchase a better  tv set for his next project ( in color, maybe ?).

Regardless people, who are you kidding? I see great work from pro photographers who could actually use the money to achieve great work. What is wrong with you ? is this the kind of photography you really want to promote ? Henri Cartier Bresson must be having a tsunami in his grave as I can assure you, that was NOT the reason he created Magnum. Not for that kind of nombrilistic, uber self-absorded, hyper reflective intello photography.

The only way photography can be saved, besides asking the French government, of course, is to stop promoting this “salon photography “whose serves no other purpose than…heck, I don’t even know what purpose it has.

Posted in No sense, multimedia, focus, Magnum, photojournalism, slideshow, getty, law, france, editorial, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

The new camera ?

March 11, 2009 by pmelcher.

Actually, it is much more. Very, very cool..I want one right now.

Posted in lens, commercial stock, technology, focus, photojournalism, prosumer, editorial | Print | No Comments »

And you thought you knew

March 6, 2009 by pmelcher.

Photography is much more powerful than we think it is. It can take pictures of the past. Take this image that you might have seen before, photographed by the Hubble telescope in 2004 :

What you are seeing is the farthest image ever taken. Those tiny faint lights in the back are actually more than 10 billion light years away. That certainly beats your long lens. That is already incredible in of itself. But what is more amazing about this image is that it is a snapshot of the past.

Let me explain. Since light travels at about 300,000 km per second, those far away proto galaxies that are you now looking at looked like that about 17 billion years ago. A few 100,000 million years after the big bang.  As your eyes travel back to closer galaxies, the ones that are bigger and more fully shape, you are actually also traveling to a timenearer to the present. ( leave or take a few billion light years)

A better way to understand this image is through an 3d animation like this:

As you past the  galaxies you are also going back in time, from more recent to extreme past. Thus the image you see above is a snaphot of the past And yes, photography can take pictures of the past. Multiple pasts, actually.Now, with that in mind, lets imagine you are standing on top of mount Everest and you have a lens powerful enough to photograph the city of Paris from where you are. You would actually be able to take a picture of  what happened in Paris a few moments ago. Sure, because of the small distance, it would be only a fraction of seconds and not the Medeval Ages. But still, that is quite a powerful tool you carry with you, don’t you think?

Now, for another thought proving thought. Just imagine yourself on a planet far away from planet earth and taking a similar picture than the Hubble telescope but having planet earth in the frame. At the right distance and right time, with a much better lense, well, you could have taken a picture of the Medival Ages after it had happen . Impressive, no ?

You could have, right now, the biggest library of historical events . What a scoop.

Seriously. We all know that photography is a time tool. It freezes all the elements of in a frame to be seen later across space and time.That is cool enough. Now we know that given the right location and tools, a photographer can actually take a picture of the past.

If you want to learn more on your own, go here.

Posted in lens, Cosmos, technology, focus, multimedia, No sense | Print | No Comments »

The anonymous photojournalist

December 18, 2008 by pmelcher.

it’s not photography that is important, its the message that it conveys. What photojournalism is all about, is messaging. It brings to our attention something that is happening elsewhere, beyond the scope of our own eyes and individuality. It permits viewers to travel through space and time without ever leaving their individual lives. Slowly the medium is becoming the message, instead of transporting it. Photographers are becoming the stars, the focal point, rather than their images.

In a society who likes to have hero, role models and stars, it is not such a surprise. But it is somewhat counterproductive to the core role of photojournalism. Instead of transposing the viewer in a place and time he or she could not have possibly been in, it is slowly shifting to bringing the viewer into a photographers head. Who took the image becomes more important than the image itself. There is nothing wrong about having a style, but real photojournalist should be anonymous. Every step they take to be better known is one more step away from their role of being a photojournalist.

Granted, we fall in a conundrum. How to get assignments, thus money, while remaining anonymous and preserving perfect objectivity? How to avoid to take images that are expected instead of what is seen ? And how to avoid sending a message within the  message.If photographer X is known for his/her highly communist political views, how can fully trust what I see? In a way, isn’t photography better served by a pool of unknown wire service photographers, like we have seen during the Mumbai attacks, than photojournalist superstars ?

Maybe so. But that could also be an added argument in the camp of the Citizen photojournalist camp: many anonymous eyes are better than one trained and famous one. Well, not so fast.

Citizen are not journalists. We have seen it over and over and will see it forever. During a conflict, drama, war, catastrophe , hurricane, citizens take care of their lives first. A photojournalist does not. They take pictures first. Their priority is to report to all those who are blind because they are not present. Capturing the message.

But not being there doesn’t mean being stupid. Studies show that 95% of human communication is non verbal. Looking at photographs is a perfect example of that. I can, with the right photograph, from the comfort of my living room,  almost feel, smell, understand a situation that has happened elsewhere and at another time.

So why would the photographer matter? How does knowing that he/she is gay/black/asian/ midget/muslim/nazi/famous/rich/french be important ? Can we relate better to the photograph when we know who shot it ?When you see pictures of your nephew, does he look cuter because it was taken by his mom or his brother ?

Its the illusion of greatness: we might be inclined to see an image as great because the photographer has taken great images in the past. Magazines or websites might publish an image just because it was taken by a branded photographer. But then we all fail, don’t we?  Even great photographers take lousy pictures. And what because of the reality of the event then ?

Distorted. By our obsession with  the infallibility of stardom. If he/she has been great than he/she will continue to be great, regardless. The message is no longer the image but who took the image. And we take one more step away from reality.

Exposing photojournalism images on a museum wall, a growing trend, accentuate this trend. Prolonging a photographs existence beyond its natural life and support is only beneficial to the photographer, not the photograph. Ripping it out of natural habitat, magazine pages or websites, is denying a huge part of what it makes it exceptional, its temporality. Its denying its direct link to a very specific event and giving it a status of art piece. A stand alone. To the pure benefit of the photographer and not the event it was initially supposed to reflect.

There is no arguing that some photographers are just plain better and more talented than others. Their photographs are a thousand time better than anyone around, at the same place and at the same time. But that should be a trade secret, an industry knowledge. It should never appear to the public. It should remain anonymous for the rest of us. For the sake of photography and the message itself.

Posted in magazine, focus, lens, newspaper, photojournalism, france, editorial, wire service, news | Print | No Comments »

Mood Photography

June 30, 2008 by pmelcher.

Photographers used to shoot black and white because they had no other choices. Photojournalist were somewhat frustrated by their limitations of not being able to represent the world the way they saw it. Then, color became available and they jumped on it. Finally, the world could be reproduced the way it was. Sure, for a long time, because of the nature of film itself, the colors were somewhat off. But still, it was like the word processor for the reporter. Today, it seems that color has been abandoned by the photojournalists that want to be at the cutting edge of reporting. Why ?

Today, two things happened to me, simultaneously. First, the announcement of Magnum new members. All black and white shooters  (besides Alec Soth). Second, I got a copy of Dispatches, the new magazine created by Gary Knight and someone else . Again, all black and white. That would not be so bad if those black and white were different. But quite frankly, they are all from the the same school of “very dark, poorly lit, very crowded, and slightly out of focus”. Most were probably taken with Holga’s or other crappy cameras. They all feel like seeing someones  very depressed bad dreams. The only feeling that emerges from viewing them is a feeling of  “hopefully the next picture will tell me what I am looking at”. But no, like a bad dream, it keeps on. For Dispatches, it is for an obscene number of pages. For Magnum’s new members, it is probably for the rest of their lives.

I was really looking forward to seeing Dispatches. I was also really looking forward to Magnum reinventing itself by accepting some new colorful original members. Both have been very, very disappointing.

Photojournalism, at least the one promoted by the photojournalism intelligentsia,  is all about moods.   Its mood photography. And the mood right now is very dark, very depressed, very Goth. There must be another way to depict the world around us than this photographic teen age angst, no ? Goethe would have no problem finding his young Werther in these images.

Enough is enough.  Black and white is only rich if can compensate for its lack of colors. It is an handicap that should be overcome with a passion, not infinite sorrow. Sadness, unless if you have a lot of time to waste on a terrace of a Parisian cafe, if very boring. Existentialism, or at least the fashion that went along with it died long before Sartre did. This absence of being in all these empty photographs remind me of the endless conversation people used to have over how much “life sucks”. That was back when I was 15.

Don’t take me wrong. I love photojournalism. With such a passion that it rips my heart to see it abuse by bored rich kids with a camera. They reject color and digital like rich suburban kids decide to become punks and get a tattoo. Against society and to piss of their parents. To get a reaction. It is a bit if these guys were trying to hide the reality of the situation they photographs with all these artifacts. This is what this current school of photojournalism makes me think about:  A bunch of spoiled rich kids rejecting the very foundation that made photojournalism what it is.

And this is not a good time for this.

Sometimes I wonder if any of these guys even know how to take a photograph in focus anymore. This is how ridiculous it has become. I know, I know, I am not being politically correct and in acceptance of what is fashionable to like. But I will take a Natchwey anytime against a Kratochvil. A Kashi before a Pellegrini. Call me old fashion, but I love color. I love photographs that speak to me about a situation rather than a “mood”. I have an insatiable thirst for truth and knowledge and I count on photography to teach me. I count on photojournalist to help me understand my world. I really, really do not need them to add more puzzles and complication with these  “plastic camera taken at night BW photos” that Edgar Allen Poe would have taken minutes before committing suicide.

I have a mood already. Just pass me reality.

Posted in focus, Magnum, magazine, photojournalism, editorial, news | Print | 2 Comments »